Douglas S. Stransky Quoted in Articles Discussing the Supreme Court’s Denial of Textron’s Petition

Tax Notes Today, Worldwide Tax Daily, Federal Taxes Weekly, Reuters, International Tax Review
May 2010

On May 24, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied Textron’s petition for a writ of certiorari, without any comment. In its certiorari petition, Textron sought review of the First Circuit’s 3-2 en banc decision in United States v. Textron, Inc. See United States v. Textron, 577 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2009). The en banc court overturned the district court’s decision, concluding that “the work product privilege is aimed at protecting work done for litigation, not in preparing financial statements.” The en banc court fashioned a new test for determining if documents are entitled to work product protection by requiring an inquiry into whether the documents were “prepared for” use in possible litigation.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, Textron set forth three reasons why the Supreme Court should hear the case. First, Textron argued that the en banc decision widened the existing split in the circuits over the scope of the work product privilege. Second, Textron asserted that the en banc decision was wrong as a matter of law. Finally, Textron’s petition emphasized that the question presented is one of paramount importance to all attorneys and their clients and thus deserving of the Court’s attention. 

There were eleven amicus curiae briefs in support of Textron's petition, emphasizing the importance of this case. The briefs urged the Court to take the case and settle the split among the circuits on the scope of the work product doctrine, arguing that the standard articulated by the First Circuit undermined the doctrine and had a chilling effect on clients’ use of counsel. 

Douglas S. Stransky was quoted in the following articles that discuss the Supreme Court’s denial of Textron’s petition for a writ of certiorari: